river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: Test anomaly
Date Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:45:44 GMT
Thanks for looking at this. I agree with you about the impenetrability
of the test code - that is why I'm working by modifying existing tests
rather than just writing the tests I need from scratch.

If this becomes the limiting factor on a release, I'll check in the
patch without a QA test.

However, I am strongly in favor of QA tests for the sake of regression
testing. I want Hudson to tell us if some future change brings back the
vulnerability to listener exceptions.


On 4/15/2011 11:21 AM, Christopher Dolan wrote:
> Patricia,
> I looked at the existing AddNewDiscoveryListener and agree with your
> assessment. But the test code is nigh impenetrable, I have to say. It
> would be beneficial in the long run if some of the common code in
> LookupDiscovery and LookupLocatorDiscovery were broken apart into
> separately testable units...  I tried writing my own test case, but it
> doesn't seem possible to mock any of the providers, so to test it you
> need an actual registrar, it appears.
> For what it's worth, today I wrote my own private test that runs in my
> djinn and verified the patch.
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:pats@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:41 PM
> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Test anomaly
> I'm attempting to construct QA tests for the RIVER-395 by copying
> existing tests of event delivery and adding a special listener that
> throws exceptions. If the patch is correct, the modified test should
> pass with all expected events going to the existing listeners despite
> the exceptions.
> I'm running my tests with 'com.sun.jini.qa.harness.level = FINEST'
> logging, so that I can assure myself that the exceptions are being
> thrown and events delivered after an exception.
> I tried to base a test on
> com/sun/jini/test/spec/discoverymanager/AddNewDiscoveryListener.td, and
> got no events.
> I've since run the complete discoverymanager category. From the logs, I
> got no change events, and only 4 tests appeared to have non-zero numbers
> of initial events.
> Could someone else take a look at this and see if this is as expected?
> It looked to me from the comments in AddNewDiscoveryListener.java as
> though processing a non-zero number of events is important to the test.
> Patricia

View raw message